Hmmm, you are using a Gmail.com email address...

Google has declared war on the independent media and has begun blocking emails from NaturalNews from getting to our readers. We recommend GoodGopher.com as a free, uncensored email receiving service, or ProtonMail.com as a free, encrypted email send and receive service.

More and more Left-wing academics, politicos and elected officials (think Democrats) are beginning to legitimize violence against constitutionally protected free speech by anarchist organizations like Antifa.

In fact, one “chronicler” of Antifa, author Mark Bray, defended the organization’s violence at the recent Charlottesville, Va., free speech rally because it “is a legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence.”

Bray, who wrote “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” discussed the far-Left group’s tactics and history of violence with Richard Cohen, president of the equally far-Left ‘think tank’ The Southern Poverty Law Center in a recent forum moderated by NBC’s “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd.

Pointing to President Donald Trump’s controversial insistence that both the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right were “to blame” for the violence that occurred Aug. 12 at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Todd asked Bray to defend his admiration for the Antifa protesters’ aggressive actions in confronting the white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

“You seem to be a very small minority here who are defending the idea of violence, considering that somebody died in Charlottesville,” Todd told Bray. “Why do you defend confronting them violently?”

Of course, he never addressed the fact that nobody “pushed” Antifa thugs; they came to the rally armed with clubs, helmets, and shields for the express purpose of violently confronting the “Unite the Right” rally participants who, by the way, had a permit to hold their event, which was to protest the city’s removal of a monument to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

“And we can see that really the way that white supremacy grows, the way that neo-Nazism grows, is by becoming legitimate, becoming established, becoming everyday, family-friendly, wear khakis instead of hoods,” Bray said. “And the way to stop that is what people did in Boston, what people did in Charlottesville. Pull the emergency brake and say, ‘You can’t make this normal.’”

Well, first of all, no one is trying to normalize neo-Nazi, white supremacist sentiment, so to argue that violence is justified in that context is a strawman argument. Secondly, even if someone were attempting to “normalize” that kind of vile, disgusting speech, it is still permissible under the Constitution’s First Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You’ll notice the framers did not include any language mandating that protected speech consisted only of that which was morally acceptable to a majority of people.

But at the same time, equally few are defending any group’s attempts to violently shut down free speech, no matter how offensive it might be.

The phenomenon of using violence to chill free speech is a relatively new development, and it has come primarily from the academic Left, which seeks to control all speech on most U.S. college campuses (where free speech used to thrive — that is, back when the Leftists were demanding it).

But now the movement has spread from the campuses to American streets, where thug wannabes wearing black masks beat people up in the name of upholding “democracy” and defending “liberty.” They’re not modern-day revolutionaries in the mold of our founders, they’re of exactly the kind of authoritarian mindset our founders rebelled against.

All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. SelfDefense.news is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. SelfDefense.news assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.